View Poll Results: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 26.67%
  • No

    8 53.33%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • Pass on the Buffett

    3 20.00%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 11:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,788

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    I think it should be mandetory for a person who runs for the highest office in the country to have had at least one full term as governor or 2 terms as a senator.

    Or a workrecord of working in high office for a considerable amount of time.

    I would never give my vote to some upstart, no matter how nice the promisses may sound.

    Someone should show that they have expirience and can be trusted with the job.

    Which is why I was very suspicious of Obama in 2008.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Crovax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,563

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    The GOP is having quite a few people thinking about running for the Presidency.....and the list keeps growing with people throwing their name out there.
    So far those that have given word are, as follows. (which they are not in any order of who is polling or currently on top.)

    1. Christie
    2. Paul
    3. Jindal
    4. Perry
    5. Santorum
    6. Bush
    7. West
    8. Pence
    9. Carson

    10. Cruz
    11. Rubio
    12. Huntsman


    Even with the limiting of the Debates. Advertising and the MS Media is looking for a field day to catch the GOP up, and with the gotcha moments.

    We have some popular figures here with Ego's to match. We have some that have never governed. So the question is.....should the RNC/GOP establishment only back those that have been Governors and know what it is like to govern a State, take care of budgets, and can get people to back to work, and have the record or working with the Demos, even if they weren't in control of anything.....or was?
    I don't think it should be limited to only governors but I think there should probably be some sort of experience requirement


    here is that list in order of experience (congress/governor/cabinet) as they will have in November 2016

    Santorum - 16 Years
    Perry - 14 years
    Pence - 14 years
    Jindal - 11 years
    Bush - 8 years
    Christie - 7 years

    Rubio - 6 years
    Paul - 6 years
    Huntsman - 4.5 years
    Cruz - 4 years
    West - 2 years
    Carson - 0 years

    of the 6 with the most experience 5 have been governors

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    Nixon a top 5 president? That might be another brain fart.
    He made Clinton look like a diplomatic novice, specifically with China. I also like how he handled the SALT treaties. His handling of removing the gold standard...well, there's good and bad in that.

    Too many people just hate Nixon and scream "Watergate! Watergate!" like it was more significant than it was. It didn't affect anything about his platform or policies. It just highlighted his ambition.

  4. #14
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    If you remember the last series of primary debates, and the "Interesting" group that beat each other up for a few months...you will know they did more damage to themselves and each other than the Democrats did. By the time it was boiled down....the soup was to bitter to eat.
    Which means the establishment should probably play a larger role in the process, but I don't necessarily believe that demands they nominate a governor strictly.

  5. #15
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    He made Clinton look like a diplomatic novice, specifically with China. I also like how he handled the SALT treaties. His handling of removing the gold standard...well, there's good and bad in that.

    Too many people just hate Nixon and scream "Watergate! Watergate!" like it was more significant than it was. It didn't affect anything about his platform or policies. It just highlighted his ambition.
    I won't deny that he did have accomplishments of great significance, but many were accomplished despite his apathy and were brought on by pressure from his advisers and political pressure alone. Couple that with his corruption and the ineffectiveness of a handful of both his monetary and fiscal initiatives, and I don't think you can place him anywhere near the top tier.

  6. #16
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    The GOP is having quite a few people thinking about running for the Presidency.....and the list keeps growing with people throwing their name out there.
    So far those that have given word are, as follows. (which they are not in any order of who is polling or currently on top.)

    1. Christie
    2. Paul
    3. Jindal
    4. Perry
    5. Santorum
    6. Bush
    7. West
    8. Pence
    9. Carson

    10. Cruz
    11. Rubio
    12. Huntsman


    Even with the limiting of the Debates. Advertising and the MS Media is looking for a field day to catch the GOP up, and with the gotcha moments.

    We have some popular figures here with Ego's to match. We have some that have never governed. So the question is.....should the RNC/GOP establishment only back those that have been Governors and know what it is like to govern a State, take care of budgets, and can get people to back to work, and have the record or working with the Demos, even if they weren't in control of anything.....or was?
    It seems to be to be a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of question. The experience of having governed is very valuable, and prepares one for blindsided political warfare. On the down side if one has been in the game, they are still playing games and greasing palms. I'd give Big Ben Carson a shot. He seems honest and smart enough with a good temperament. Closely followed by Rubio and Paul.
    "It is only when men contemplate the greatness of God that they can come to realize their own inadequacy." Jean Calvin

  7. #17
    Sage
    Crovax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,563

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    He made Clinton look like a diplomatic novice, specifically with China. I also like how he handled the SALT treaties. His handling of removing the gold standard...well, there's good and bad in that.

    Too many people just hate Nixon and scream "Watergate! Watergate!" like it was more significant than it was. It didn't affect anything about his platform or policies. It just highlighted his ambition.
    and trying to ban handguns and being a racist was just icing on the cake to being so awesome?

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    I won't deny that he did have accomplishments of great significance, but many were accomplished despite his apathy and were brought on by pressure from his advisers and political pressure alone. Couple that with his corruption and the ineffectiveness of a handful of both his monetary and fiscal initiatives, and I don't think you can place him anywhere near the top tier.
    I don't think "apathy" and "corruption" (which I disagree with, by and large) really affect his ability as President. Other than Watergate, he really didn't have any significant stain. Hell, Clinton had multiple S&L scandals along with Lewinsky - and he was still a very good POTUS by and large. I judge his Presidency by Presidential measures, not moral ones.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crovax View Post
    I don't think it should be limited to only governors but I think there should probably be some sort of experience requirement


    here is that list in order of experience (congress/governor/cabinet) as they will have in November 2016

    Santorum - 16 Years
    Perry - 14 years
    Pence - 14 years
    Jindal - 11 years
    Bush - 8 years
    Christie - 7 years

    Rubio - 6 years
    Paul - 6 years
    Huntsman - 4.5 years
    Cruz - 4 years
    West - 2 years
    Carson - 0 years

    of the 6 with the most experience 5 have been governors


    Mornin' Crovax That's am Excellent Post. I think if the RNC was more vocal and saying they are more apt to back a governor. Due to the country needing Some sort of Leadership.

    Then maybe we can get a few of these guys to consider staying on the sidelines. Not have to go thru this wear and tear the other up.

  10. #20
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,484

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    The GOP is having quite a few people thinking about running for the Presidency.....and the list keeps growing with people throwing their name out there.
    So far those that have given word are, as follows. (which they are not in any order of who is polling or currently on top.)

    1. Christie
    2. Paul
    3. Jindal
    4. Perry
    5. Santorum
    6. Bush
    7. West
    8. Pence
    9. Carson

    10. Cruz
    11. Rubio
    12. Huntsman


    Even with the limiting of the Debates. Advertising and the MS Media is looking for a field day to catch the GOP up, and with the gotcha moments.

    We have some popular figures here with Ego's to match. We have some that have never governed. So the question is.....should the RNC/GOP establishment only back those that have been Governors and know what it is like to govern a State, take care of budgets, and can get people to back to work, and have the record or working with the Demos, even if they weren't in control of anything.....or was?


    Placing limitations on who runs will not lead the GOP to the land of milk and honey, nor will having the GOP dictate from above.

    First, Republicans need to stop listening to the White House propaganda; 2012 was not the disaster they paint. Romney ran Obama through the middle part of the campaign and won the opening debate, ending five points behind. He was gaff prone, weak, cold and distant and his campaign people were complete morons; they let Obama get away with so much crap they deserved to lose by 15%....YOU NEVER take your heel off your opponent's throat. EVER.

    So under a weak, kind of cardboard cut out too-square chinned candidate, against a brilliant showman, glowingly protected in the media and armed with the largest war chest in the history of politics, the Republican machine still delivered its core and then some......within 5% as I recall.

    The last run up was indeed self defeating. After the third debate I was wondering if the echelon knew something I didn't, but it was an ass-grab contest most notable for the media being unable to see or hear Ron Paul and the character destruction of perhaps the most decent man up there and the only guy with what might have been some answers, what I said then was the perfect VP candidate.

    The problem, in the end, was that the whole show was about cardboard cut out pretty people who had fooled enough people some of the time to appear successful who came armed with talking points, no answers and far too few questions. They ended up with a chilly, gaff prone, candidate with the charisma of a gold fish after sifting through the party's collection of swelled head ambition whores; a guy who was simply using the party as his machine to stardom.

    By the time the game begins publicly and in earnest, it will be too late. I have long seen the GOP circle its wagons and shoot inward. However I was at the pinnacle of my career when Nixon went out the hard way, that slime sucking ****-for-brains Ford making a mockery of justice; events we, the collective brain trust of the day were sure signs the GOP would languish in the political desert for decades. Enter Reagan and shooting outwards. There's a hint there.

    The mid terms are an opportunity for the party to meld together on the points they agree on, close the pie hole on what they disagree on, then start shooting outward. It would seem to me the GOP has forgotten a basic rule of the nastiest non-contact sport in the universe; a house divided cannot stand. Democrats have a few fissures running through them and while they clobber the crap out of Republicans on so-called social issues, the Republicans ignore the huge divide on the other side: the rich, Hollywood environmental people with the $ on one side, and out of work, under employed working men and women who are not working but could be with one pipeline....

    The party is still circled, still facing inward...at least for now their not shooting, but they need to turn around and see the enemy for what it is....smoke, mirrors, incompetence and lies....
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •